Crebs v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At this point we pause to consider respondent’s contention that all questions determined in the two decisions from which we have just quoted are res judicata and no longer available as grounds for habeas corpus in the case at bar. We do not believe the rule permits the sustaining of that contention in the broad form in which respondent seeks its application. As we understand it the doctrine of res judicata does not apply in case of refusal to discharge a prisoner on habeas corpus. However, prior adjudications, where a subsequent application is based on the same facts relied on in former proceedings, may be taken into consideration to prevent abuse of the writ and given controlling effect if in the exercise of its discretion such conclusion appears to the court, to which the subsequent application is presented, to be justified after consideration of all facts and circumstances having a material bearing upon the subject. (39 C. J. S. 698 §105; 25 Am. Jur. 250 §156; Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U. S. 239 , 68 L. Ed. 999 ; Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224 , 68 L. Ed. 989 ; Slaughter v. Wright, 135 P. 2d 613 ).” (p. 656.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nicolay v. Kill · Tines v. Hudspeth

2. ““ ... If the defendant pleads and goes to trial without objecting for the want of such copy, the neglect of duty by the clerk will not be sufficient ground to set aside the verdict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cox v. Hudspeth · Houghton v. Hudspeth